Hi, Isn't rationality highly overestimated in our western culture? The more I think about it, the more I'm getting convinced that the real 'processing' power resides at a less conscious level, in our neural network which can 'reason' with incomplete and inconsistent data in 'real time'. This power is sometimes called intuition or common sense. I believe that intuitive knowledge is the foundation for cognitive knowledge. It delivers the axioms for our rationality. And these axioms are much more than just: "Cogito ergo sum" ... Are there any philosophers who adhere this idea? Thank you very much, Eric

In the larger epistemological sense, what role does the law of witnesses, e.g. Federal Rules of Evidence (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/index.html#article_vi), play in our search for knowledge (and truth)? So much of our day-to-day life in modern society is based upon the law or rule of witnesses, e.g. the rule of law, scientific investigations, journalism (print and television news reports), to name just a few. And yet if we take the view of the skeptics -- and to a larger degree, much of philosophy -- nothing is really knowable (with respect to certainty). So how can so much of our daily life rest upon (be founded upon) a principle -- the law or rule of witnesses -- which may be without epistemological foundation? If there are any texts that specifically address this subject, I would appreciate references. Thanks in advance for any and all replies!

I'm looking for essays arguing that what we whole-heartedly believe is empirical reality, is really only what we've agreed is reality. Can anyone direct me?

Is it possible to 'see' existence (the world) without any bias? Can a lack of bias be considered a bias or just another perpective? Is there a 'true' way to see the world?

I hope you can help me answer a question I've been thinking about for some time... How do we really know if objective reality exists at all and, even if it does, what is to say that our view on objective reality is correct?

My question will be introduced at the end of this post. I have thought on this question for some time now. But first off let me say that I do not know all there is to know about the theory of Solipsism. From what I gather, the definition can be summed up in the phrase: The theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. Holding this to be true, person A kills himself. Moments before doing so, he scribbles down on a sheet of paper: If You can read this when I am dead, the theory of Solipsism is false. This seems to be a great way to find out if the theory of Solipsism is true or not, but I have come up with a counter: Person B discovers person A's body and the note. If Person A kills himself, having written down what he did, then he would have only been acting in person B's perception of the world; hence, the theory of Solipsism would be true to person B, because person B can still only be sure of his own existence- and cannot be sure that person A ever did exist. This brings up yet...

A friend of a friend of mine posed a really odd problem regarding our beliefs that I’ve not really been able to answer to my own satisfaction. If we believe that X is the case, then it seems to go without saying that we also believe that we believe X is the case. It would be odd to say that we believe X but don’t believe we believe it. But then if that has to be so, it also seems that we must also believe that we believe that we believe that X is the case. And if that’s so then it seems we must believe that we believe… You get the picture. What’s going on here? We’re finite beings so we can’t have an infinite number of beliefs, can we? I’d put forward some of the thoughts I had about it, but I’m not entirely sure that I think I had them.

I have a question about philosophy itself that I hope is not too general, for you (as I feel it's important). I have my B.A. from an accredited University and am still trying to figure out how a philosopher explains the processes of intuition. I consider myself to be a philosopher in my heart---a manner with which I analyze and view the world from all different angles (surely, a logical process). I also have a side of me that is intuitive (or, that sometimes goes completely against logic, yet ends up being extremely accurate). It would seem that intuition itself sometimes (or usually) expresses a certain accurate knowledge of the universe in a different manner than logic; yet can (for some more than others, depending on giftedness in this vein) be depended on for things that logic alone cannot provide. What is the purpose and reliability of intuition, from a professional philosopher's vantage point? Do you feel this concept is tied into religion and God, or strictly to the former life experiences...

Is there a philosophy of 'Generalisations'? I've heard the phrase 'all generalisations are wrong' and, after getting over the irony of the generalisation (surely it should be 'THIS is the only true generalisation', wondered if it were true. Generalisations seem to be at the heart of a lot of misconceptions, including all manner of prejudices and 'isms'. There seems to be a tendency for people to see a few random events and imagine a they see a patern which everything else must follow - I notice myself doing it sometimes, and do my best to stop it! On the other hand, what if a generalisation is a sine qua non of a thing? for instance 'all female mammals are warm blooded and give birth to live young' must be true because both assertions are essential characteristic for an an animal to be classed as a true mammal. So where do we stand in relation to generalsations? What are they, where do they come from, and how do they relate to 'truth'? - Mark

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once told a story that one of his philosophy professors asked, "What is time?" Young Mr. Sheen had responded that he knew what it is but wasn't sure he could explain it, to which the professor responded, "If you cannot explain it then you do not know what it is." Is it or is it not possible to know what something is and not be able to express it in language?